Interesting post. In Mr. Barland's conclusion he states:

"I believe that the irregularities in this examination would be more likely to create an inconclusive result than an erroneous one."

Really Mr. Barland?--you have conducted experiments to show you can predict how an "irregularity" affects the tracings? It never fails to amaze me how these polygraphers pull such things out of their hats; it's akin to Astrology and Phrenology.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/03/27761.htm

Obama Accuser Accused
By RYAN ABBOTT 

     WASHINGTON (CN) - A political blogger claims a gadfly defamed him with "wild allegations" about colluding with then-Senator Barack Obama's campaign to hide the murder of a church choir director, cocaine use and gay sex. Daniel Parisi sued Larry Sinclair in Federal Court, and also sued a radio talk show host, Sinclair Publishing, Barnes & Noble, Amazon.com, and Books-a-Million. 

     Parisi claims Sinclair published a book in 2009 that accuses him of colluding with Obama's adviser David Axelrod to rig a polygraph exam that would debunk Sinclair's story that he had sex and took cocaine with then-Senator Obama.

     Parisi claims that in 2008 Sinclair posted "wild allegations regarding the purchase, sale and use of drugs and sexual activity by and between Sinclair and Obama," on YouTube. That video was still posted on YouTube this morning (Thursday).

     Parisi says Sinclair's book is riddled with false information, including that he criminally conspired with Obama and his campaign; that he accepted money from the campaign; that he rigged Sinclair's polygraph; that he and Obama were somehow involved in the murder of a church choir master; and that his website, Whitehouse.com, contained pornography.

     Parisi claims that Barnes & Noble, Amazon and Books-A-Million sell Sinclair's book with claims such as "100% true," and "staggeringly true story," to sell the concoction of nonsense.

     "Sinclair's book and the statements published by other defendants did not contain a scintilla of factual support for their wildly false and reckless untrue statements," Parisi says.

     Parisi claims he sent a cease-and-desist order to Sinclair, who responded, "HELL, NO."

     In his complaint, Parisi says his own website, Whitehouse.com, "paid Sinclair $20,000 by check as part of a modified agreement" for Sinclair to take a polygraph exam. Parisi claims the "modified agreement" came after "He [Parisi] offered to pay Sinclair $10,000 to take polygraph examinations and it pay him $100,000 if the examinations showed Sinclair was telling the truth. Whitehouse.com, Inc. later paid Sinclair $20,000 by check as part of a modified agreement."

     Parisi claims Sinclair "showed deception" on both his polygraph exams, and never produced the evidence he claimed to have.

     Parisi seeks millions of dollars for defamation and business disparagement. He also sued radio talk show host Jeffrey Rense, of Ashland, Ore.

     Parisi is represented by Richard Oparil with Patton Boggs.

I belive that his man is telling the truth and that we the american people have better start praying like never before. :'

http://www.whitehouse.com/FullStory.aspx?NewsID=1083

WASHINGTON, June 17, 2008: Whitehouse.com will hold a press conference regarding the Larry Sinclair controversy on June 18, 2008 in the Visagor Lounge of the National Press Club, 529 14th Street NW, Washington, DC 20045. Signup will start at 3:00 PM, and the actual conference will start at approximately 4:00 PM, following the conclusion of Mr. Sinclair's press conference, which is scheduled earlier in the day.

At the press conference, Whitehouse.com will describe how, in February 2008, Mr. Sinclair accepted an offer from Whitehouse.com to take two professionally-administered polygraph examinations to test the veracity of his explosive allegations. After the initial polygraph expert examined the results and made his conclusions, Whitehouse.com was accused of taking a $750,000 bribe to suppress and or alter the results of the polygraph examinations.

During the press conference, Whitehouse.com will release the results of the polygraph examinations, the reports of the experts, and a video of Mr. Sinclair taken while the examinations were being administered.

Whitehouse.com focuses on giving average Americans a greater voice on issues facing the country. Whitehouse.com, which is celebrating its 11th year, has been visited by over 100 million people since its inception in 1997. We are not affiliated with or endorsed by U.S. Government.

http://www.mmdnewswire.com/barrack-obama-illegal-drug-3492.html

Barrack Obama Illegal Drug Use Allegations to be Corroborated at Press Conference
June 13, 2008

PRESS RELEASE 

Washington, D.C. - Despite death threats and an organized campaign to prevent him from speaking publicly, Larry Sinclair – on June 18, 2008, at 3:00 PM in the Lisagor Room of the National Press Club, 529 14th Street NW, Washington, DC 20045, will for the first time reveal the corroborating evidence for his claim that on November 6 + 7, 1999, Larry: (i) met Obama at a gay bar where Barrack Obama arranged for the purchase of federal Schedule II drugs, (ii) which Larry and Obama thereafter ingested and (iii) then engaged in hi-risk, homosexual activities.

Larry’s story burst on to the scene on January 18, 2008, when Larry released a short video containing these allegations on YouTube.com.  That video has had close to a million views yet the mainstream media has completely ignored Larry’s serious allegations.  Thereafter, a clearly orchestrated campaign to discredit Larry began on the internet which forced Larry to resort to federal court to protect his reputation.

At the press conference, Larry will (i) reveal the corroborating evidence for his allegations regarding Obama, (ii) address the time-line of the response of the Obama campaign to his allegations and the murder of Donald Young, the openly gay choir director of Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama’s now-former church and (iii) the significance of the refusal of U.S. District Court Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. to allow Larry’s case to proceed.

Media Contact:
Montgomery Sibley
mbsibley@earthlink.netThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
202-248-3973

- End -

Now fueling further controversy in the ugly scandal is a disputed polygraph test that was set up and administered by an Internet Web site. Sinclair took up an offer from WhiteHouse.com, which is not connected to the government, to take a lie-detector test about his Obama charges. He was paid $10,000 for taking it and promised $100,000 if he passed.

He flew to Los Angeles and took the test administered by former American Polygraph Association president Dr. Ed Gelb on Feb. 22.

WhiteHouse.com reports that Sinclair failed on two key points -- the claim that he had sex with Obama, and the charge that he saw Obama smoke crack.

"There was deception indicated in both tests," the site reported on Feb. 24, adding that "another expert examiner" independently corroborated the findings. But Sinclair tells GLOBE he was suckered into taking the test and was "set up" to look bad by failing the polygraph.

He says he's been told Obama's camp is behind the lie-detector offer -- and also contends the Obama campaign put up hundreds of thousands of dollars to "set the entire thing up."

"They put a condition in there that I'm not allowed to take another polygraph test for four weeks," he says.

"This was a tactic designed to allow Obama to pretty much lock up the nomination before I can take another test and prove my story once and for all!"

In his defense, Gelb tells GLOBE, "I have never taken a bribe to do anything improper in my life. This is a profession based on truth, honesty, integrity. I don't think you're ever going to find me in a position to compromise that."

I scored the printout of the second series of charts (regarding cocaine), but was not satisfied with the quality of the electrodermal channel on one of the charts. When I received the digital data and optimized the channel, I used the Federal 7 position scale and the 2007 DACA reaction criteria to evaluate the charts. I scored the charts as -7 (Deception Indicated). I also evaluated the second series using the computer algorithm PolyScore (v. 6.0). It evaluated the charts as No Deception Indicated, and calculated the probability of deception as being less than .01 on a scale from .00 to 1.00. This was inconsistent with my numerical analysis. This is a relatively uncommon occurrence. The DACA guidelines indicate that when there is conflict between the examiner's or reviewer's score and Polyscore, the human score takes precedence. The computer algorithms are considered to be useful supplements, but they are not definitive, I therefore concur with Mr. Gelb's conclusions that Mr. Sinclair showed indications of deception on both test issues.